| Content Provider | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| e-ISSN | 30484839 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | NDLI |
| Subject Keyword | Consequences with regard to the nature of the property Property Hindu Law Mitakshara Hindu Law Merger agreement signed by sovereign Ruler with the Dominion of India |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Law Judgement |
| Jurisdiction | India |
| Act(s) Referred | Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956) |
| Case(s) Referred | Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 |
| Case Type | Appeal |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Disposal Nature | Appeal Dismissed |
| Headnote | Hindu Law – Property – Merger agreement signed by sovereign Ruler with the Dominion of India – Consequences with regard to the nature of the property – Impartible estate or coparcenary property – The then Maharaja of the State of Maihar had perpetual lease rights of the property in question, leasehold Nazul land – ‘BNS’, the ruler who succeeded to the gaddi of the said State bequeathed the palace of Maihar and privy purse to his elder son of his first wife and the property in question to his second wife for her son – Aforesaid elder son sold the property in question to the appellant – Suits were filed for permanent injunction claiming right in the property by adverse possession and also for declaration & injunction against the appellant – Dismissed – Impugned judgment reversed the findings of the courts below and held that the property was part of the impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture– Held: An estate even if inherited and ancestral, partition of which is prohibited by custom and succession whereto is generally by the rule of primogeniture is referred to as an ‘impartible estate’ – As per the custom relating to impartible estates and the rule of primogeniture, the Raja or Ruler of a princely state would not hold the estate as the karta or coparcener, but as the absolute owner and the estate would be impartible – On the death of the Ruler, the succession to the rulership, and the impartible estate, was not under the Mitakshara law of survivorship but by the rule of primogeniture – In the present case, inheritance of the property post the death of the then Maharaja of the State of Maihar by the new Ruler including ‘BNS’ by application of the rule of primogeniture indicates that it was treated as a State or sovereign property– Property was a part of the impartible property i.e., though ancestral was not a part of the coparcenary property, but was a part of the estate of the sovereign Ruler, ‘BNS’ – Final findings of the High Court, affirmed– Hindu Succession Act, 1956– ss. 4, 5(ii), 6, 8, 9, 14 & 30– Constitution of India – Arts.291, 362, 363(2), 366(22) – Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971 – Evidence Act,1872 – s.48 – Doctrine of ‘cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex’ – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Hindu Law – Mitakshara Hindu Law – Difference between the Joint Hindu family and Coparcenary – Discussed. Hindu Law – Property – Impartible estate – Succession to – Rule of primogeniture – Held: Though the right to survivorship is not inconsistent with the custom of impartible estate, albeit it is different from the ordinary rule of succession under the Mitakshara Hindu law where all sons of the father are entitled to equal share in his estate, for the law of succession when the rule of primogeniture applies, is that the first-born son succeeds to the entire estate to the exclusion of the other sons. Hindu Law – Property – Impartible estate and the rule of primogeniture – Origin of – Discussed. Hindu Law – Succession to impartible estate – Rights of coparceners, if any – Held: An impartible estate is clothed with the incidents of self-acquired and separate property – Such estate even if inherited and ancestral, is not held by the coparcenary as a part of the coparcenary property, as the coparceners or members of the joint Hindu family do not have the right to partition or right to restrain alienation – Thus, any property belonging to the Ruler as a sovereign, which would devolve on succession by survivorship by application of the rule of the primogeniture, would not bear an incidence of a coparcenary property. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss. 4, 5(ii) – Continuation of the custom of impartibility and the rule of primogeniture post the covenants and merger – Held: s.5(ii) is an exception to s.4 and protects application of terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India or the terms of any enactment passed before commencement of the Succession Act as per which the estate would descend to a single heir – Further, ratio of the Constitution Bench in Vir Rajendra Singh is a binding precedent for it recognizes the personal law of succession of the Rulers and therefore, the rule/custom of primogeniture applicable to impartible estates belonging to erstwhile Rulers of the princely states – This custom/rule was not abrogated with the loss of sovereignty that the Rulers had forgone with the signing of the merger agreement – Law of the land is pervious to the rule of primogeniture – Constitution of India – Arts.291, 366(22). Constitution of India – Arts. 362, 291 – Lease rights of the property in question transferred to the then Maharaja of the State of Maihar – ‘BNS’, the ruler who succeeded to the gaddi of the State of Maihar bequeathed the palace of Maihar and privy purse in 1966 to his elder son of his first wife and rest of the properties including the property in question to his second wife for her son – Elder son sold the property in question to the appellant in 1968 – Impugned judgment inter alia held that the property was part of the impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture – Appellants contended that the property being leasehold Nazul plot owned by the superior lessor, i.e. State of U.P., could not be treated as a sovereign property in the hands of ‘BNS’ but, should be treated as coparcenary property belonging to the joint Hindu family – Held: Rejected – Succession on death of ‘BNS’ had opened on 13.10.68, which is before Art.362 relating to the rights and privileges of the Indian Rulers was repealed – ‘BNS’ took over as a Ruler of the State of Maihar in the pre-independence era when the Rulers, though subject to British supremacy, were treated as absolute sovereign Rulers within their own territories – There was no distinction between public and private property of the Rulers since the distinction would be counter to the basic attribute of sovereigntyHindu Law – Property – Merger agreement signed by sovereign Ruler with the Dominion of India – Consequences with regard to the nature of the property – Impartible estate or coparcenary property – The then Maharaja of the State of Maihar had perpetual lease rights of the property in question, leasehold Nazul land – ‘BNS’, the ruler who succeeded to the gaddi of the said State bequeathed the palace of Maihar and privy purse to his elder son of his first wife and the property in question to his second wife for her son – Aforesaid elder son sold the property in question to the appellant – Suits were filed for permanent injunction claiming right in the property by adverse possession and also for declaration & injunction against the appellant – Dismissed – Impugned judgment reversed the findings of the courts below and held that the property was part of the impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture– Held: An estate even if inherited and ancestral, partition of which is prohibited by custom and succession whereto is generally by the rule of primogeniture is referred to as an ‘impartible estate’ – As per the custom relating to impartible estates and the rule of primogeniture, the Raja or Ruler of a princely state would not hold the estate as the karta or coparcener, but as the absolute owner and the estate would be impartible – On the death of the Ruler, the succession to the rulership, and the impartible estate, was not under the Mitakshara law of survivorship but by the rule of primogeniture – In the present case, inheritance of the property post the death of the then Maharaja of the State of Maihar by the new Ruler including ‘BNS’ by application of the rule of primogeniture indicates that it was treated as a State or sovereign property– Property was a part of the impartible property i.e., though ancestral was not a part of the coparcenary property, but was a part of the estate of the sovereign Ruler, ‘BNS’ – Final findings of the High Court, affirmed– Hindu Succession Act, 1956– ss. 4, 5(ii), 6, 8, 9, 14 & 30– Constitution of India – Arts.291, 362, 363(2), 366(22) – Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971 – Evidence Act,1872 – s.48 – Doctrine of ‘cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex’ – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.Hindu Law – Mitakshara Hindu Law – Difference between the Joint Hindu family and Coparcenary – Discussed. Hindu Law – Property – Impartible estate – Succession to – Rule of primogeniture – Held: Though the right to survivorship is not inconsistent with the custom of impartible estate, albeit it is different from the ordinary rule of succession under the Mitakshara Hindu law where all sons of the father are entitled to equal share in his estate, for the law of succession when the rule of primogeniture applies, is that the first-born son succeeds to the entire estate to the exclusion of the other sons.Hindu Law – Property – Impartible estate and the rule of primogeniture – Origin of – Discussed. Hindu Law – Succession to impartible estate – Rights of coparceners, if any – Held: An impartible estate is clothed with the incidents of self-acquired and separate property – Such estate even if inherited and ancestral, is not held by the coparcenary as a part of the coparcenary property, as the coparceners or members of the joint Hindu family do not have the right to partition or right to restrain alienation – Thus, any property belonging to the Ruler as a sovereign, which would devolve on succession by survivorship by application of the rule of the primogeniture, would not bear an incidence of a coparcenary property.Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss. 4, 5(ii) – Continuation of the custom of impartibility and the rule of primogeniture post the covenants and merger – Held: s.5(ii) is an exception to s.4 and protects application of terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India or the terms of any enactment passed before commencement of the Succession Act as per which the estate would descend to a single heir – Further, ratio of the Constitution Bench in Vir Rajendra Singh is a binding precedent for it recognizes the personal law of succession of the Rulers and therefore, the rule/custom of primogeniture applicable to impartible estates belonging to erstwhile Rulers of the princely states – This custom/rule was not abrogated with the loss of sovereignty that the Rulers had forgone with the signing of the merger agreement – Law of the land is pervious to the rule of primogeniture – Constitution of India – Arts.291, 366(22).Constitution of India – Arts. 362, 291 – Lease rights of the property in question transferred to the then Maharaja of the State of Maihar – ‘BNS’, the ruler who succeeded to the gaddi of the State of Maihar bequeathed the palace of Maihar and privy purse in 1966 to his elder son of his first wife and rest of the properties including the property in question to his second wife for her son – Elder son sold the property in question to the appellant in 1968 – Impugned judgment inter alia held that the property was part of the impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture – Appellants contended that the property being leasehold Nazul plot owned by the superior lessor, i.e. State of U.P., could not be treated as a sovereign property in the hands of ‘BNS’ but, should be treated as coparcenary property belonging to the joint Hindu family – Held: Rejected – Succession on death of ‘BNS’ had opened on 13.10.68, which is before Art.362 relating to the rights and privileges of the Indian Rulers was repealed – ‘BNS’ took over as a Ruler of the State of Maihar in the pre-independence era when the Rulers, though subject to British supremacy, were treated as absolute sovereign Rulers within their own territories – There was no distinction between public and private property of the Rulers since the distinction would be counter to the basic attribute of sovereignty |
| Judge | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna |
| Neutral Citation | 2019 INSC 1344 |
| Petitioner | Trijugi Narain (dead) Through Legal Representatives And Others |
| Respondent | Sankoo (dead) Through Legal Representatives And Others |
| SCR | [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1049 |
| Judgement Date | 2019-12-10 |
| Case Number | 5740 |
National Digital Library of India (NDLI) is a virtual repository of learning resources which is not just a repository with search/browse facilities but provides a host of services for the learner community. It is sponsored and mentored by Ministry of Education, Government of India, through its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT). Filtered and federated searching is employed to facilitate focused searching so that learners can find the right resource with least effort and in minimum time. NDLI provides user group-specific services such as Examination Preparatory for School and College students and job aspirants. Services for Researchers and general learners are also provided. NDLI is designed to hold content of any language and provides interface support for 10 most widely used Indian languages. It is built to provide support for all academic levels including researchers and life-long learners, all disciplines, all popular forms of access devices and differently-abled learners. It is designed to enable people to learn and prepare from best practices from all over the world and to facilitate researchers to perform inter-linked exploration from multiple sources. It is developed, operated and maintained from Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.
Learn more about this project from here.
NDLI is a conglomeration of freely available or institutionally contributed or donated or publisher managed contents. Almost all these contents are hosted and accessed from respective sources. The responsibility for authenticity, relevance, completeness, accuracy, reliability and suitability of these contents rests with the respective organization and NDLI has no responsibility or liability for these. Every effort is made to keep the NDLI portal up and running smoothly unless there are some unavoidable technical issues.
Ministry of Education, through its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT), has sponsored and funded the National Digital Library of India (NDLI) project.
| Sl. | Authority | Responsibilities | Communication Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education |
Sanctioning Authority | https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives |
| 2 | Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur | Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project | https://www.iitkgp.ac.in |
| 3 | National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur | The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project | Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in |
| 4 | Project PI / Joint PI | Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project |
Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon |
| 5 | Website/Portal (Helpdesk) | Queries regarding NDLI and its services | support@ndl.gov.in |
| 6 | Contents and Copyright Issues | Queries related to content curation and copyright issues | content@ndl.gov.in |
| 7 | National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club) | Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach | clubsupport@ndl.gov.in |
| 8 | Digital Preservation Centre (DPC) | Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books | dpc@ndl.gov.in |
| 9 | IDR Setup or Support | Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops | idr@ndl.gov.in |